Welcome to /r/conlangs, the main conlanging hub of reddit.
Conlanging (Language Construction) is the act of creating languages from scratch or based upon existing languages, and building up their sound, grammar and syntax to a usable point.
This subreddit is focused on the discussion of conlangs, tools and activities to aid you in the construction of your own conlang, and creating a community environment where we can all enjoy conlanging together.

A word always begins with a single hard consonant and thereafter every segment is a soft consonant, vowel, or diphthong. Two non-identical vowels cannot appear in sequence unless one of the three allowed diphthongs. The sequences [ti], [di], [ki] and [si] are prohibited. The Latin orthography follows IPA with the exception of [tʃ dʒ ʃ ɛ], which are written "c j x y"

A word requires exactly one root and at least one inflectional suffix. The zero suffix is interpreted as the direct case marker, which covers uses corresponding the the nominative and accusative in English. All three parts of speech are open-class. A word cannot belong to multiple classes simultaneously and homophony is prohibited.

Every word is a noun by default and is made into a verb with the appropriate inflectional suffix.

Pronouns:
1s he 1p hai 2 su

for third person pronouns, demonstratives are used instead.

example verbs: da "journey, motion" and so "affection"

verbal inflections are open-class, so new ones can be created and they vary somewhat from dialect to dialect.

Word order varies between VSO and SVO depending largely on pragmatics. Verbal inflections are required to agree with the topic if it appears after the verb or is omitted.

That being said, softening negation is normally not done, even in deference to authority. There's a very strong cultural prohibition against concealing what one is thinking or soft-pedaling rejection or denial. The most common response to a statement that's perceived as "too soft" is "sama koi!" or "go ahead and complain already!".

I am enjoying the morpheme movement. It reminds me of split ergativity, with which I am obsessed. You have "He dasa cirivale," which kinda reminds me of isolating languages. And you have the agglutinative "Cirivaleha." And they're equally grammatical!

So if you share my obsession, then, as you develop the grammar more, you could consider expanding the syntax options available to a Kajile speaker -- nuances upon nuances of topic/tone?

I'm not sure where Kajile would fit on the isolating / agglutinative scale. The lexemes are invariant and monomorphemic (except for case markers, which are mildly fusional).

As for the notion of split ergativity, I'm trying very hard to make Kajile neutral, but some bits of ergative-absolutive alignment surface in "verbing" nouns. The precise semantics of verbing a noun depends on whether the noun describes an "activity" or a "state", with this distinction being analogous to transitivity in other languages. For nouns describing a state, the "first" argument is interpreted as being the agent and the "second" as the patient. There are verbal inflections that distinguish whether the first noun is to be interpreted as a state or an activity, but this distinction is generally unnecessary, so inflections that distinguish them are low-frequency items.

One thing that's messing with my head right now is how I should do relative clauses. So many choices!

As for the nuances of topic, pseudo-nouns like "vau" that carry very high modal weight are almost required to be topicalized. I say pseudo because while "vau" behaves syntactically like any other noun, its semantics are very different. Failure to topicalize a privileged argument is considered either misleading or making an incredibly weak statement.

Sorry I wasn't very clear -- I wasn't actually accusing you of making the grammar split-ergative. My thought is that you could formalize some kind of relationship between the two kinds of syntax that's analogous to split ergativity:

Also I didn't realize that "vau" was a noun -- that's a cool idea. At least it is to me, who have only studied IE languages. If you like, you might use that fact to its fullest. Make the negation of sentences an art: inflections, etc, on "vau" (when it's serving as a core argument, not a demonstrative) could do cool things to meaning.

Also, good luck with relative clauses, lol. (Also: noun clauses? If so, how do you topicalize them?)

I'm really liking the sound of the language as it appears in my head. I also like what you've done with the hard and soft consonants, and that y hasn't been mapped to /j/ as it often might be. How will you handle adjectives?